Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/70

CF–70

Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Monday, June 16, 1919, at 11 a.m.

  • Present
    • United States of America
      • President Wilson.
    • British Empire
      • Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
    • France
      • M. Clemenceau.
    • Italy
      • M. Sonnino.
    • Japan
      • Baron Makino.
Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. } Secretaries.
M. di Martino.
Professor P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter.

(M. Clemenceau and M. Mantoux were not present during the discussion of the first few items.)

1. The Council had before them a memorandum by the Economic the Economic Commission, headed Periods of Time, recommending certain alterations in the Treaty of Peace with Germany. (Appendix I).

(After the memorandum had been read, it was agreed that these alterations should not be approved.) Periods of Time for the Economic Provisions: Alteration in the Treaty of Peace With Germany Proposed by the Economic Commission

2. The Council had before them a suggested modification in Article 276c of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. (Appendix II.)

(After the proposed alteration had been read, it was agreed that it was not necessary to make the Germany alteration.) Treatment of Nationals of Allied and Associated Powers: Proposed Alteration in Article 276c of the Treaty of Peace with Germany

3. The Council had before them proposals of the Special Aeronautical Committee in regard to the exportation and subsequent repurchase of aeronautical material in Germany (Appendix III). At the end of this memorandum it was proposed that the measures, if adopted, should be extended to all enemy States and to all war material.

(After the memorandum had been read, it was agreed that the proposals should not be adopted.) Proposed Addition to the Treaty of Peace in Regard to Aeronautical Material and Other War Material in Germany

4. The Council had before them Report No. 5 by the Protection of Committee on New States, recommending an additional Article for insertion in the Treaty of Peace with committee on Germany after Article 93, or after Article 155. (Appendix IV.) Protection of Minorities: Addition to the Treaty of Peace, Proposed by the Committee on Minorities

Mr. Lloyd George said that the only effect of this would be to make the Germans suspicious.

[Page 470]

(After the proposed addition had been read, it was agreed that the proposals of the Committee on Minorities should not be adopted.)

5. Sir Maurice Hankey reported that on the previous day, a verbal alteration of the revised Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, on the subject of Religious Missions, which had been approved by the Council on Saturday, June 14th,1 had been initialled by President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George, and had provisionally been Germany acted on by the Drafting Committee. They had felt justified in doing this, as the British and United States Governments were more concerned than other Governments in the alteration. He now asked for the initials of the representatives of the other states. Religious Missions in Former German Colonies: Alteration to Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace With Germany

The alteration in question, consisted of the substitution for the following words, “composed of persons belonging to the same or corresponding religious denomination as the Mission whose property is involved” by the following, “composed of persons holding the faith of the Mission whose property is involved.”

Mr. Lloyd George said that the reason for the change was that there was no religious denomination in the British Empire precisely corresponding to the German Lutheran denomination. The word faith had been substituted for denomination, as it would enable other denominations closely akin to the Lutherans, such as the Presbyterians, to take over the Lutheran Missions.

M. Sonnino did not much like the word faith, the use of which, he said, would bring about difficulties with the Vatican.

(After a discussion, in the course of which, the proposed declaration to the Vatican was brought up, M. Sonnino withdrew his objections, and the revised Article 438 was initialled by M. Clemenceau, M. Sonnino and Baron Makino.) (Appendix V.)

Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward the initialled copy to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.

6. With reference to C. F. 66, Minute 2,2 in the course of the previous discussion, Mr. Lloyd George handed in the draft of a Proposed declaration which it was proposed to make to the Declaration Vatican in regard to German Missions. Proposed Declaration to the Vatican

The draft was read, and in the course of the discussion, the following alterations were made:—

Paragraph 2. Last line. At the suggestion of Baron Makino, the words “in Africa and Asia Minor” were omitted.

Baron Makino pointed out that there might be Missions in the Pacific Islands also.

[Page 471]

Paragraph 3. M. Sonnino suggested that the following words in lines 10 to 13 might cause considerable difficulties:—“the property of Missions under the Holy See will be placed at the disposal of persons of the Roman Catholic faith authorised thereto by the Holy See.”

The Council approved of the following substitute:—

“The property of Missions under the Holy See will be placed at the disposal of properly authorised persons of the Roman Catholic faith”, the following words being omitted:—“authorised thereto by the Holy See.”

President Wilson said that he could not accept the following additional paragraph, which had been proposed in case it were desired to apply the declaration to territory other than mandated territory:—

“These principles laid down by International agreement for territories administered under mandate will also be observed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in all territories belonging to them.”

(It was agreed to omit this paragraph.)

A copy of the final declaration, as generally approved, is attached. (Appendix VI.)

Baron Makino asked, however, that the final decision might be reserved until the afternoon.

7. With reference to C. F. 65, Minute 11,3 the Council had before them a draft paragraph for inclusion in the reply by the Allies to the German Counter-proposals on the subject of Memel. Memel

(This reply was approved subject to the following addition after the word “sovereignty.”

“particularly in view of the fact that Memel is the only sea outlet for Lithuania.”

A copy of the paragraph, as finally approved, was handed to M. Tardieu for the Editing Committee. (Appendix 7.)

Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General.)

8. With reference to C. F. 57, Minute l,4 M. Clemenceau said M. Loucheur had pressed for a small verbal alteration on page 6 of the reply to the German Counter-proposals on the subject Reparation: of Reparation.

(After a short discussion, it was agreed that the following sentence should be deleted:—“Suitable facilities for inspecting the damage done will be afforded to Germany’s Agents at reasonable times” and that the following [Page 472] sentence should be substituted:—“The necessary facilities for making reliable estimates of the damage done by her will be afforded to Germany.”Reparation: Alteration in the Reply to the German Counter-proposals

A copy of the final version of the reply is contained in Appendix VIII.

The change was communicated by Sir Maurice Hankey to M. Loucheur and M. Tardieu, who were in the adjoining Room.)

9. M. Sonnino handed in the attached letter, dated June 14th, 1919, addressed by M. Orlando to M. Clemenceau, as President of the Peace Conference, (Appendix IX) on the subject of the peculiar difficulties which would face Italy should the signature of the Conditions of Peace with Germany take place before the settlement of the future Italian boundaries. This, as explained in detail in the letter, arises from the fact that the signature of the Peace Treaty with Germany implies also the signature of the Covenant of the League of Nations, one of the clauses of which, contemplates reciprocal guarantees for the territories of the signing powers. The Reservation by Italy in Regard to the League of Nations Covenant in the German Treaty

M. Orlando had telegraphed, M. Sonnino continued, to ask that Italy’s reserve should be recorded, namely:—

“That the Italian Delegation is of opinion that the Clauses of the League of Nations, just because they refer to a territorial asset already established, do not apply to any of those arrangements and to those questions connected with them, which form the object of the Peace and which have not been settled yet.”

M. Orlando had always hoped, when giving his previous warnings on the subject, that the question of the Italian claims might be regulated before the signature of the German Treaty, and thus it was imperative to make these reservations now.

President Wilson suggested that these reservations were entirely unnecessary, since none of these mooted questions arise out of the Peace with Germany. The Austrian Treaty, he pointed out, also contains the Covenant of the League of Nations, and lays down that Austria agrees to recognise some of the States within boundaries to be decided by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Consequently, the League of Nations Covenant could not apply to an unclosed question.

Mr. Lloyd George suggested that M. Sonnino should write a letter to the Council.

M. Sonnino said that it would be sufficient for the moment if his reservation was taken note of on the procès-verbal.

(It was agreed to take formal note of the reservation contained in M. Orlando’s letter of June 14th, 1919.)

[Page 473]

10. The text of an agreement between the United States of America, France and Great Britain, in regard to the Rhine Provinces,4a was approved by M. Clemenceau, Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson. Occupation of the Rhine Provinces

Mr. Lloyd George pointed out that some similar arrangement would have to be made with Belgium. Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to prepare a copy for signature.

11. Sir Maurice Hankey said he had received a telephone message from the Drafting Committee stating that the Rhine Convention was now practically ready to be handed to the Germans. The material given the Drafting Committee had not specified who were to be the High Contracting Parties. As the Italian representative on the Drafting Committee had stated that Italy would like to be a High Contracting Party, notwithstanding that she was not represented on the High Commission, the Drafting Committee had included Italy as well as Belgium with the British, French and United States as High Contracting Parties. Rhine Convention

Baron Sonnino said that the only object of making Italy a High Contracting Party was to enable her to send a Military Attaché to the High Commission in order to keep her informed of what was going on.

At the Commission which considered this subject Lord Robert Cecil had said that Italy could always send a liaison officer.

M. Clemenceau doubted if there was much value to Italy in a liaison officer who would only [apparent omission] between operative bodies.

Baron Sonnino said that if there was to be no Italian liaison officer, it was no use Italy being a High Contracting Party.

(It was agreed:—

1. That Italy should not be a High Contracting Party.

(This was immediately notified to the Drafting Committee by Sir Maurice Hankey.)

2. That the Convention should be handed to the German Delegation at the same time as the reply to the German Counter-proposals.)

12. President Wilson said he was to be away at Brussels from the evening of Tuesday, June 17th, until the morning of Friday, June 20th.

Mr. Lloyd George said he contemplated a short absence. Proceedings of the Council

The Council then adjourned upstairs for the discussion of certain military questions with the Military Representatives at Versailles, the proceedings being recorded as a separate meeting.

Villa Majestic, Paris, 16 June, 1919.

[Page 474]

Appendix I to CF–70

M–271

Memo. by Economic Commission

Periods of Time

In the final provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Germany it is laid down that for the determination of all periods of time provided tor in the Treaty, the date of the coming into force of the Treaty will be the date of the first proces verbal of the deposit of ratifications, this first proces verbal having to be drawn up as soon as the Treaty has been ratified by Germany on the one hand and by three of the principal Allied and Associated Powers on the other.

In various parts of Sections III., IV., V. and VI. of Part X. (Economic Clauses) of the Treaty, provision is made for action being taken by an Allied or Associated Power within a stated period of the coming in force of the Treaty. It is clear that if these periods are reckoned from the date of the coming into force laid down in the final provisions mentioned above, they may have expired before some of the Allied and Associated Powers have deposited their ratifications. The Economic Commission accordingly decided unanimously that the Drafting Committee should be requested to make the necessary alterations so that the periods of time mentioned in the Sections of the Treaty in question should begin to run for each Allied or Associated Power from the date of the ratification of the Treaty by that Power.

The Drafting Committee feel some difficulty in acting on this request without the specific authority of the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. The matter is an important one and it is therefore suggested that the Council should authorise the Drafting Committee to take the necessary action to deal with the matter.

Appendix II to CF–70

M–272

Chapter IV—Treatment of Nationals of Allied and Associated Powers

Article 276 of the Treaty with Germany with the suggested modification of paragraph (c) as underlined:—5

“Germany undertakes:—

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(c) Not to subject the nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers, their property, rights and interests, including Companies [Page 475] and Associations in which they are interested, to any charge, tax. or impost, direct or indirect, other or higher than those which are or may be imposed on her own nationals or their property, rights or interests, or on the nationals of any more favoured nation or their property, rights or interests”.

Appendix III to CF–70

WCP–1007

Proposals of the Special Aeronautical Committee re Aeronautical Material in Germany

General Duval, Chairman of the Special Aeronautical Committee. To the President of the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference.

At the request of General Groves, Military Delegate for the British Empire, I summoned to an extraordinary Meeting on June 10th, 1919, the members of the Special Committee, whose names are as follows:

  • General Patrick for the United States of America.
  • General Groves for the British Empire.
  • Admiral Orsini for Italy.
  • General Nara for Japan.

Admiral Orsini being at Milan, was not represented at the Meeting.

General Groves at the opening of the Meeting explained the following reasons which were to form the basis for discussion:

In February it came to the knowledge of the British Military Attachés at Berlin and the Hague that the Germans were exporting their aeronautical material into neutral countries especially Holland, Denmark, Norway, as well as Russia. These exports which were about to diminish from that date suddenly resumed considerable importance when the Air Clauses in the Treaty of Peace appeared in the press.

General Groves thought that there were three different methods of explaining these exports:—

(i)
The Germans were placing their aeronautical material outside the control of the Allied and Associated States by selling them to neutral countries under the condition of their being able to repurchase them six months after the Treaty of Peace.
(ii)
The Germans, although definitely selling their material were creating a new market for their goods to the detriment of Allied industries.
(iii)
By creating markets in this manner Germany was permitting her aircraft industry to live and even to develop. She was thus preserving enormous facilities for manufacture which would form for her the basis of a great aerial Power.

[Page 476]

In consequence, the British Delegate proposed:—

(i)
The suppression of aircraft manufacture in Germany and the enemy countries after the Treaty of Peace for a fixed period.
(ii)
The presentation of a note by the Supreme Council to the German Government, informing the latter that the Allied and Associated States had been informed of the exports of material made by Germany, and the addition of a new clause to the Treaty of Peace compelling Germany to render an account of all aeronautical material in her possession on the 11th November, 1918, as well as of material constructed since that date, an indemnity to be paid for all material exported.
(iii)
The despatch of a note to the neutral countries warning them that all aeronautical material actually in Germany being, in accordance with the Clauses of the Treaty of Peace, the property of the Allied and Associated Powers, the purchase of this material by them would be considered as a hostile act.
(iv)
The presentation of a note to the Germans, either by the High Command or by the Armistice Commission, directing them to put a stop to these exports under the penalty of the addition of severe measure in the Treaty of Peace and of re-imposition of the blockade.

On the first proposal, the Delegates having expressed the wish that the reports of the Aeronautical Commission of the 15th March and 7th April, 1919,5a should be again brought to the notice of the Supreme Council, decided to adopt the attitude which they had taken at the time of the discussions which were the basis of these reports.

France and Japan, however, now supported the British point of view, which would reduce to a period of from two to five years after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace the duration of the absolute prohibition of aircraft manufacture in Germany.

The United States maintained their original reservations.

Article 201 of the Treaty of Peace would, in consequence, require modification.

With respect to modifications to be made in certain Articles of the Treaty of Peace in consequence of new circumstances, General Patrick, Delegate of the United States, was, moreover, of the opinion that all the articles could be amended by the Supreme Council so long as the Treaty had not been ratified. The other members of the Committee were of the same view.

The second and third proposals were adopted by all the members of the Committee for recommendation to the Supreme Council.

The Committee unanimously request that these measures, if they are adopted, should be extended to all the enemy States and to all war material.

[Page 477]

Appendix IV to CF–706

commission on new states

Report Number Five to the Council of Four

The Commission on New States, in the course of its labors, on the protection of minorities in the new states or in the states receiving large increases in territory, has observed that certain of the latter states, notably Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro are already bound, in the matter of religious liberty, by the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878.7

It thought that the best means of having these states (which are not new states) accept definite engagements for their old territories, was to free them at the same time, from the engagements imposed upon them in 1878 as a condition for the recognition of their independence. It is under the form of treaties between the Allied and Associated Powers and these States that the abrogation of the Treaty of Berlin, on this subject, will be stated.

However, it must not be forgotten that, since Germany is not one of the signatories of the new treaties, it might continue to take advantage of the old stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin.

The Commission on New States, therefore believes that it should suggest to the Council of Four the insertion in the Treaty with Germany of an explicit article on this subject, the place of which would be sufficiently indicated, either after Article 93, or rather after Article 155 (Turkey and Bulgaria) and the wording of which follows hereafter.

A similar clause should be inserted in the Treaties with Austria and Hungary, as successors to part of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin. If the suggestion were adopted, the proposed article would be immediately sent to the drafting committee to be revised in form and inserted in the place which may seem the best to the said committee.

The President of the Commission On New States

Article To Be Inserted in the Peace Treaty With Germany

Germany gives, in advance, its approval of the Treaties and agreements concerning the protection of minorities, equality of commerce and transit, which may be concluded between the Allied and Associated [Page 478] Powers and Greece, the Serb, Croat, Slovene State and all other States bound by the clauses of the Treaty of Berlin concerning the protection of religious minorities.

From the conclusions of said agreements, Germany binds itself to consider as abrogated, with respect to the States concerned, the conditions imposed for the recognition of the independence of these states by Articles 27, 35, and 44 of the Treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878.

Appendix V to CF–70

M–264 (Revise)

Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace With Germany

The Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers has on June 14th, 1919, approved the following alterations to be substituted for that part of the first paragraph beginning at the end of line six and for the second paragraph, leaving the third paragraph untouched.

“In order to ensure the due execution of this undertaking the Allied and Associated Governments will hand over such property to boards of trustees appointed by or approved by the Governments and composed of persons holding the faith of the Mission whose property is involved.”

“The Allied and Associated Governments, while continuing to maintain full control as to the individuals by whom the Missions are conducted, will safeguard the interests of such Missions.”

  • W. W.
  • G. C.
  • D. Ll. G.
  • N. M.
  • S. S.

Appendix VI to CF–70

M–275 (Revise)

Draft Declaration Regarding German Missions

1.
The Principal Allied and Associated Powers have carefully considered the representations made to them regarding the position of Missions under the Holy See in territory belonging to them or of which the Government is entrusted to them in accordance with the Treaty of Peace. They believe that the following declaration will serve to remove all misunderstandings as to their policy:—
2.
The Provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Germany are in general confined to obligations assumed by Germany towards the [Page 479] Allied and Associated Powers or by the Allied and Associated Powers towards Germany. The obligations which the Allied and Associated Powers intend to assume towards each other and towards all the members of the League of Nations are left to be embodied in subsequent agreements. In particular, the provisions of Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant will be carried into effect by solemn agreements laying down the obligations to be assumed by the mandatories of the League.
3.
In regard to Missions, these “mandatory” agreements will give the fullest interpretation to the words of Article 22 guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion. To this end, these agreements will provide that missionaries of all denominations shall be allowed freely to prosecute their calling, to maintain their schools and other institutions and to acquire and hold property of every description. In any case, where, by the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, it becomes necessary to transfer the property of German missions to Boards of Trustees, the property of missions under the Holy See will be placed at the disposal of properly authorised persons of the Roman Catholic faith. In any case where, by the terms of the same treaty, it becomes necessary to exercise any control as to the individuals by whom the missions are conducted, such action will be taken in due consultation with the authorities of the denomination concerned.

Appendix VII to CF–70

M–273 (Revise)

memel

The Allied and Associated Powers reject the suggestion that the cession of the district of Memel conflicts with the principle of nationality. The district in question has always been Lithuanian; the majority of the population is Lithuanian in origin and in speech; and the fact that the city of Memel itself is in large part German is no justification for maintaining this whole district under German sovereignty, particularly in view of the fact that Memel is the only sea outlet for Lithuania.

It has been decided that Memel and the adjoining district shall be transferred to the Allied and Associated Powers for the reason that the states [status] of the Lithuanian territories is not yet established.

[Page 480]

Appendix VIII to CF–70

WCP–950

1st Revise 11.6.19 (Morning)

2nd Revise 11.6.19 (Afternoon)

3rd Revise 16.6.19 (Morning)

reparation

Reply to German Counter Proposals

(Finally approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on afternoon of June 11th, 1919, with a small amendment (underlined on page 6),8 approved on the morning of June 16th.)

The Allied and Associated Governments, consistently with their policy already expressed, decline to enter into a discussion of the principles underlying the Reparation Clauses of the Conditions of Peace, which have been prepared with scrupulous regard for the correspondence leading up to the Armistice of November 11th, 1918, the final memorandum of which dated 5th November, 1918,9 contains the following words:—

“Further, in the conditions of peace laid down in his address to Congress of the 8th January, 1918, the President declared that the invaded territories must be restored as well as evacuated and freed, and the Allied Governments feel that no doubt ought to be allowed to exist as to what this provision implies. By it they understand that compensation will be made by Germany for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and from the air.”

To the extent that your reply deals with practical phases of the execution of the principles enunciated in the Conditions of Peace, you appear to proceed on the basis of a complete misapprehension, which is the more difficult to understand as the inferences you draw and the statements which you make are wholly at variance with both the letter and the spirit of the Treaty Clauses. For purposes of clarification, however, and in order that there may be no possible ground for misunderstanding, the Allied and Associated Governments submit the following observations:—

The vast extent and manifold character of the damage caused to the Allied and Associated Governments in consequence of the war has created a reparation problem of extraordinary magnitude and complexity, only to be solved by a continuing body, limited in personnel and invested with broad powers to deal with the problem in relation to the general economic situation. The Allied and Associated Powers, recognising this situation, themselves delegate power and authority to a Reparation Commission. This Reparation Commission is, however, instructed by the Treaty itself so to exercise and interpret its powers as to ensure in the interest of all, as early and complete a discharge [Page 481] by Germany of her reparation obligations as is consistent with the true maintenance of the social, economic and financial structure of a Germany earnestly striving to exercise her full power to repair the loss and damage she has caused.

The provisions of Article 241, by which the German Government is to invest itself with such powers as may be needed to carry out its obligations, are not to be misconstrued as giving the Commission power to dictate the domestic legislation of Germany. Nor does Paragraph 12 (b), of Annex II, give the Commission power to prescribe or enforce taxes or to dictate the character of the German budget, but it is to examine the latter for two specified purposes. This is necessary in order that it may intelligently and constructively exercise the discretion accorded to it in Germany’s interest particularly by Article 234, with regard to extending the date and modifying the form of payments. The provisions of Article 240 with regard to the supply of information are similar in character and purpose and there should be little occasion for the exercise of these powers when once the amount of the liability of Germany is fixed, if Germany is in a position to, and does, comply with the schedule of payments which then will have been notified to her and with the specific provisions of the several Annexes relative to reparation in kind. It is further to be observed that the power of modification accorded by the said Article 236 [234] is expressly designed to permit of a modification in Germany’s interest of a schedule of payments which events may demonstrate to be beyond Germany’s reasonable capacity. The Allied and Associated Powers vigorously reject the suggestion that the Commission, in exercising the power conferred by Article 240 and by Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Annex IV, might require the divulgence of trade secrets and similar confidential data.

The observations of the German Delegation present a view of the Commission so distorted and so inexact, that it is difficult to believe that the clauses of the Treaty have been calmly or carefully examined. It is not an engine of oppression or a device for interfering with German Sovereignty. It has no forces, which it commands; it has no executive powers within the territory of Germany; it cannot, as is suggested, direct or control the educational or other systems of the country. Its business is to fix what is to be paid; to satisfy itself that Germany can pay; and to report to the Powers, whose Delegation it is, in case Germany makes default. If Germany raises the money required in her own way, the Commission cannot order that it shall be raised in some other way; if Germany offers payment in kind, the Commission may accept such payment, but, except as specified in the Treaty itself, the Commission cannot require such a payment. The German observations appear to miss the point that the Commission [Page 482] is directed to study the German system of taxation for the protection of the German people no less than for the protection of their own. Such study is not inquisitorial, for the German system of taxation is not an object of curiosity to other Powers, nor is a knowledge of it an end in itself. If any plea of inability which the German Government may advance, is to be properly considered, such a study is necessary. The Commission must test whether a sincere application is being given to the principle, accepted in the observations “that the German taxation system should impose in general on the taxpayer at least as great a burden as that prevailing in the most heavily burdened of the States represented on the Reparation Commission”. If the German resources are to be properly weighed, the first subject of inquiry, and perhaps the first ground for relief, will be the German fiscal burden.

It is understood that the action necessary to give effect to the provisions of Annex IV, relative to reparation in kind, will be taken by Germany on its own initiative, after receipt of notification from the Reparation Commission.

The provisions of the Treaty are in no wise incompatible with the creation by Germany of a Commission which will represent Germany in dealings with the Reparation Commission and which will constitute an instrumentality for such co-operation as may be necessary. The Treaty specifically and repeatedly provides opportunities for the German Government to present facts and arguments with respect to claims and modes of payments, within the limits of the principles and express provisions of the Treaty. This may be done through a commission and no reason is perceived why such a commission could not work in harmony with the Reparation Commission. Certainly this is greatly to be desired. The Allied and Associated Powers are therefore ready to agree to such a procedure as the following:—

Immediately after the Treaty is signed, Germany may present and the Allied and Associated Powers will receive and examine such evidence, estimates and arguments, as she may think fit to present. Such documents need not be final but may be presented subject to corrections and additions.

At any time within four months of the signature of the Treaty, Germany shall be at liberty to submit, and the Allied and Associated Powers will receive and consider, such proposals as Germany may choose to make. In particular, proposals will be acceptable on the following subjects and for the following purposes: Germany may offer a lump sum in settlement of her whole liability, or in settlement of her liability under any of the particular categories which have been decided upon and laid down. Germany may offer to undertake to repair and reconstruct part of the whole of any damaged district, or [Page 483] certain classes of damage in each country or in all the countries which have suffered. Germany may offer labour, materials or technical service for use in such work, even though she does not undertake to do the work herself. She may suggest any practicable plan, category by category, or for the reparations as a whole, which will tend to shorten the period of enquiry and bring about a prompt and effectual conclusion. Without making further specifications, it may be said in a word that Germany is at liberty to make any suggestion or offer of a practical and reasonable character for the purposes of simplifying the assessment of the damage, eliminating any question or questions from the scope of the detailed enquiry, promoting the performance of the work and accelerating the definition of the ultimate amount to be paid. The necessary facilities for making reliable estimates of the damage done by her will be afforded to Germany. Three conditions and three only are imposed upon the tender of these proposals. Firstly, the German authorities will be expected before making such proposals to confer with the representatives of the Powers directly concerned. Secondly, such offers must be unambiguous, and must be precise and clear. Thirdly, they must accept the categories and the reparation clauses as matters settled beyond discussion. The Allied and Associated Powers will not entertain arguments or appeals directed to any alteration. The Allied and Associated Powers have to remark that in the Observations submitted the German Delegation has made no definite offer at all but only vague expressions of willingness to do something undefined. A sum of £5,000,000,000 is indeed mentioned, and this is calculated to give the impression of an extensive offer, which upon examination it proves not to be. No interest is to be paid at all. It is evident that till 1927 there is no substantial payment but only the surrender of military material and the devolution upon other Powers of large portions of Germany’s own debt. Thereafter a series of undefined instalments is to be agreed, which are not to be completed for nearly half a century. The present value of this distant prospect is small, but it is all that Germany tenders to the victims of her aggression in satisfaction of their past sufferings and their permanent burthens.

Within two months thereafter the Allied and Associated Powers will so far as may be possible, return their answer to any proposals that may be made. It is impossible to declare in advance that they will be accepted, and if accepted, they may be subject to conditions, which can be discussed and arranged. The Allied and Associated Powers, however, declare that such proposals will be seriously and fairly considered; no one could be better pleased than they, if, in the result, a fair, speedy, and a practical settlement were arrived at. The questions are bare questions of fact, namely, the amount of the liabilities, and they are [Page 484] susceptible of being treated in this way. Beyond this, the Powers cannot be asked to go.

The Powers will, however, make a declaration on another point, as follows: The resumption of German industry involves access by the German people to food supplies and by the German manufacturers to the necessary raw materials and provision for their transport to Germany from overseas. The resumption of German industry is an interest of the Allied and Associated Powers as well as an interest of Germany. They are fully alive to this fact and therefore declare that they will not withhold from Germany commercial facilities without which this resumption cannot take place, but that, subject to conditions and within limits, which cannot be laid down in advance, and, subject also to the necessity for having due regard to the special economic situation created for Allied and Associated countries by German aggression and the war, they are prepared to afford to Germany facilities in these directions for the common good.

Even if no settlement were arrived at, it must be evident that the early production of the German evidence would greatly abbreviate the enquiry, and accelerate the decisions. The information at present at hand comes from one side only. The German Authorities have had long occupation of a large part of the damaged areas and have been over the ground, forwards and backwards, within the last twelve or fifteen months. Their information must be extensive and exact. The Allied and Associated Powers have as yet had no access to this mass of material. The mere comparison of the evidence forthcoming on the one side and the other must greatly narrow the field of dispute and may eliminate dispute altogether. It is obvious that, if the class of damages done in the devastated areas can be dealt with in this fashion, the liability under the other categories can be quickly established, for it depends on the statistics and particulars of a far simpler character. By giving a satisfactory covenant to execute the work of rebuilding themselves, the Germans could at once dispose of the only difficult or long subject of inquiry.

Meanwhile, the draft Treaty must be accepted as definitive and must be signed. The Allied and Associated Powers cannot any longer delay to assure their security. Germany cannot afford to deny to her populations the peace which is offered to them. The Reparations Commission must be constituted and must commence its task. The only question open will be how best to execute the provisions of the Treaty.

The foregoing should suffice to demonstrate the reasonableness of the conditions under which Germany is to discharge her reparation obligations, and how utterly unfounded are the criticisms of the German reply. These are, indeed, explicable only on the theory that the German plenipotentiaries have read into the Conditions of Peace, in clear defiance [Page 485] of their express terms, an intent which it would be not unnatural to see evidenced by victorious nations which have been the victims of cruelty and devastation on a vast and premeditated scale. The burdens of Germany undeniably are heavy, but they are imposed under conditions of justice by peoples whose social well-being and economic prosperity have been gravely impaired by wrongs which it is beyond the utmost power of Germany to repair.

Appendix IX to CF–70

[Letter From the Head of the Italian Delegation (Orlando) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]

My Dear Mr. President, Several times already, during private conversations with each of my three colleagues, I had the opportunity to call their attention to the peculiar difficulties which Italy would have faced should the signature of the Conditions of Peace with Germany take place before the settlement of the future Italian boundaries. I very clearly expressed this same idea at a meeting of the Four, and, to be precise, during the afternoon of April 24th last,10 President Wilson objecting to my argument remarked:

“Strictly speaking the decisions in regard the Italian frontiers do not affect the Peace with Germany but only with the Austrian Hungarian Empire. Henceforth certainly I could see no inconsistency between Italy taking part in the Treaty with Germany and reserving the Treaty with Austria.”

To such remark of the President I replied with a few commentaries of political character, but I insisted, above all, in pointing out that:

“the signature of the Peace Treaty with Germany implies also the signature of the Covenant of the League of Nations. One of the clauses of said Covenant contemplates reciprocal guarantees for the territories of the signing Powers. The result would be that Italy would engage itself to guarantee the territories of other countries, without being itself guaranteed.”

I concluded by saying: “Such conditions would prevent me from signing the Peace with Germany, in case territorial questions with Austria were not previously settled.”

The question was not given, at the time, any further consideration, nor was afterwards taken up again, because until a few days ago, the hope had been entertained that after the settlement of the Italian frontiers with Austria, it would also have been possible to settle the Italian oriental and Adriatic boundaries, as well as some [Page 486] other important questions interesting Italy. But as unfortunately such possibility seems to have vanished, the question put down in a formal way during the meeting of April 24th, comes again in its integrity.

Having given such question a new and careful consideration for it concerns an indispensable guarantee of the interests of my country, I must ask you to agree with the following reserve viz. that the Italian Delegation is of opinion that the clauses of the League of Nations, just because they refer to a territorial asset already established, do not apply to any of those arrangements and to those questions connected with them, which form the object of the Peace Conference and which have not been settled yet.

While I have the honour to bring the aforesaid to your knowledge it remains understood that my colleague Baron Sonnino, who fully represents me at the Conference, will have the opportunity to discuss the matter with you and to reach a decision about it.

Identical communication has been sent to President Wilson and to Mr. Lloyd George.

Believe me [etc.]

[No signature on file copy]
  1. See CF–66, p. 417.
  2. Ante, p. 417.
  3. Ante, p. 399.
  4. Ante, p. 290.
  5. Appendix to CF–73A, p. 522.
  6. Printed in italics.
  7. Neither printed; a portion of report of March 15 is quoted in BC–52, vol. iv, pp. 371372.
  8. The document erroneously inserted in the file copy of the minutes as appendix IV to CF–70 is the same as appendix V (E) to CF–65 and is not reprinted. Instead there is printed as appendix IV the report (Paris Peace Conf. 181.23202/23) described in the text of the minutes, p. 469.
  9. Foreign Relations, 1878, p. 895.
  10. Printed in italics, p. 483.
  11. Foreign Relations, 1918, supp. 1, vol. i, p. 468.
  12. See IC–176C, vol. v, p. 210.